Spectrum Analyzers. Great tool!

[Mr. ROUSH]

I do think now that we are over analysing. I wonder if it's the old art or craft debate? What exactly are we doing - constantly reinventing things or making real improvements? We should also be careful about the people we listen to? If I read Alan Parsons is using X to do Y, I'd pay attention - always have, and the guys at Spitfire Audio talk my language - but so many of the current crop of names cited as 'respected mixers' are probably people I don't have in my audio collection. I've read Sound on Sound magazine for years but I'm getting more and more distant from the music the 'names' in the articles produce. There certainly are new skills, new processes and techniques, but they're applied to music that I just hate. I really do not need to see the music I'm hearing unless there is a problem I can't solve aurally. So many times we hear dreadful recordings that are fixed, massaged and tweaked to give a good end result. I'm the opposite, I'd rather spend more time producing a decent recording that doesn't need the post production.

Lots of analogies come to mind along those lines. I have all of the respect in the world for Alan Parsons. That being said, I like to keep my scope wide. Some of my favorite engineers haven't been in the game even remotely near is long. But, it's a bit like comparing Lebron James to Pistol Pete. It's a different league now. At the end of the day, each person should use it any way that it benefits them or helps them improve. I do think they are best used sparingly and for diagnostics or to help with ear training. I'd prefer to use it to improve my mix up front rather than as any kind of post production utility. End of the day, though, a good end result is a good end result. That meets rule #1. "If it sounds good, it is good."

 

[Farview]

Ha! As a professional photographer, I appreciate the light meter reference. lol. Actually, I think a light meter is a better argument in favor of spectrum analyzers. Light meters analyze the ambient light, or flash, in order to dial in the correct exposure settings on your camera. Creatively, you might decide to overexpose or underexpose. Nonetheless, the general reference is a great starting point and almost always yields accurate results. I wouldn't say that a spectrum analyzer is quite as accurate as a light meter. However, it's a useful tool. If holding a light meter up to a drawing helps to analyze it, improving your efforts, go for it!

Right, but he was talking about analyzing the shading and layering of a professional drawing.

That would be like using a light meter to measure someone else's picture.

 

[Mr. ROUSH]

Right, but he was talking about analyzing the shading and layering of a professional drawing.

That would be like using a light meter to measure someone else's picture.

Like I said, whatever helps you get there, right? And, let's not let his point be lost. The principle is the same. Analyzing popular results can help you to achieve similar results. This is true in drawing, mixing, kicking footballs, etc. End of the day, the point is that it's a useful tool. Each person should decide how useful it is in their own process.

 

[JamEZmusic]

I would not use a light meter on a drawing for the same reason I wouldn't use a spectrum analyzer on one of my cooking recipes.

Unless it helped?

I might use a magnifying glass, a reference drawing and feel. I might even hold a physical drawing up to the light because in this instance, what you see is what you get. Unlike sound where ears get tired, speakers react differently, rooms alter tones etc.

I do rely on meters when recording digitally, I rely on my ears and ignore my meters entirely when pushing pre-amps. I rely on meters and my ears on my stereo busses to make sure the mix is not leaning even if it means I might have to ignore what the meter is telling me. When using a graphical EQ surgically it's my eyes and ears, when using analogue EQ I might even close my eyes and concentrate. I look at peaks in waveforms for big offenders loop it and deal with it, or fishtail spikes that the ear just can not pick up on. Using eyes saves a lot of time. But I do whatever I can for the most reliable results, I find ways of cheating ear fatigue by listening as minimally as I can and using my eyes more, then I switch to different monitors, headphones, I might flip Left and Right (don't mock it until you'e tried it). But sometimes I feel like using my eyes are pointless. Much like listening to a picture.

It's fine if you are against spectrum analysers, I hope after those kind of statements that you would never use one. I was just putting my point across as to why I can find them very useful. And I felt I needed to elaborate on that more after the comment made about the worry of rookie engineers falling into the trap of using them. Rookie engineers would benefit from them the most, especially as they are probably highly unlikely to be sitting in the sweet spot of a fully treated studio on speakers that are probably not going to reproduce any good low end.

The techniques I use to speed up my learning has allowed me in the past to become very competetive worldwide at a few things in the past. It has always worked for me but I understand not everybody has the same mindset!

Some hate music theory and think it holds you back, Not me.
Some can't read music and only improvise, Not me
Some follow no rules, I learn the rules before I break them.

Those people are not wrong, just different. I feel like I can assume Rob Aylestone and others who dismiss the spectrum analyzer would likely be the musicians that would rather improvise and disregard most of the music theory. Just a hunch.

Mr.Roush,
I feel like match EQ is in the same kind of family of plugins as spectrum analyzers in a way which is why I mentioned it, they're like little hacks. I try not rely on it but when I am trying to record a guitar part to replace one of the guitars in a multitrack and I want to get as close as possible to the reference, I do the best I can by ear but match EQ can sometimes take me all the way. As I learn more I use those cheat tools less and less. Actually I don't think I've used it once in the last 6months. ProQ2 match EQ sounds very different to the Logic Stock MatchEQ, and believe it or not the Logic Stock one sounds better to me quite often.

Actually what I just said is a good point........ I do the best I can with my ears, but use the metering tools to take me all the way. Hopefully soon I'll be able to use my ear only to take me all the way, but this is unlikely to happen anytime soon as I said above. I'm comparing myself to guys that have been mixing 8-16hours a day for 30 years. Anything to close that gap!

 

[JamEZmusic]

Oh yeah and the mixers I am looking up to are the ones that mixed many of my favourite records.

But it wouldn't matter a great deal if a new up and coming engineer that mixed music that I disliked gave me advice. I will certainly listen!

Doesn't mean I would take it as gospel though. I know just about enough to filter out a lot of bad advice now, my foundation is there. But it was tough going when I was starting out and didn't even know what a compressor was.

SoundOnSound is great. They review a lot of the latest and greatest plugins and from what i have seen will praise a lot of them.
Hugh RobJohns seems to know his stuff, I will pay attention to a lot of his posts.

 

[rob aylestone]

Yes - Hugh knows his stuff, but it's interesting to see what sort of things he never reviews or comments on. I read the cubase section in detail and often discover things it does for users totally not like me - which is good for diversity of opinion. I never take on projects from the mediums and genres I don't understand. I've never in my life mixed a reggae track. I just can't do music on the offbeat - it is like fingernails on a blackboard - it makes me feel weird. I did loads of classical music at one point and hated virtually all of it, but over the past ten years it's appeared back in my work, and so has opera and choirs. Now I like it. In my teens I rebelled against it tonally. Now I'm old I'm producing tracks for burlesque dancers. I even had one who did her act in the studio while I was mixing so the music could follow the action. Looking at a analyser screen would not have been useful on that one!

 

[Mr. ROUSH]

I would not use a light meter on a drawing for the same reason I wouldn't use a spectrum analyzer on one of my cooking recipes.

Unless it helped?

I might use a magnifying glass, a reference drawing and feel. I might even hold a physical drawing up to the light because in this instance, what you see is what you get. Unlike sound where ears get tired, speakers react differently, rooms alter tones etc.

I do rely on meters when recording digitally, I rely on my ears and ignore my meters entirely when pushing pre-amps. I rely on meters and my ears on my stereo busses to make sure the mix is not leaning even if it means I might have to ignore what the meter is telling me. When using a graphical EQ surgically it's my eyes and ears, when using analogue EQ I might even close my eyes and concentrate. I look at peaks in waveforms for big offenders loop it and deal with it, or fishtail spikes that the ear just can not pick up on. Using eyes saves a lot of time. But I do whatever I can for the most reliable results, I find ways of cheating ear fatigue by listening as minimally as I can and using my eyes more, then I switch to different monitors, headphones, I might flip Left and Right (don't mock it until you'e tried it). But sometimes I feel like using my eyes are pointless. Much like listening to a picture.

It's fine if you are against spectrum analysers, I hope after those kind of statements that you would never use one. I was just putting my point across as to why I can find them very useful. And I felt I needed to elaborate on that more after the comment made about the worry of rookie engineers falling into the trap of using them. Rookie engineers would benefit from them the most, especially as they are probably highly unlikely to be sitting in the sweet spot of a fully treated studio on speakers that are probably not going to reproduce any good low end.

The techniques I use to speed up my learning has allowed me in the past to become very competetive worldwide at a few things in the past. It has always worked for me but I understand not everybody has the same mindset!

Some hate music theory and think it holds you back, Not me.
Some can't read music and only improvise, Not me
Some follow no rules, I learn the rules before I break them.

Those people are not wrong, just different. I feel like I can assume Rob Aylestone and others who dismiss the spectrum analyzer would likely be the musicians that would rather improvise and disregard most of the music theory. Just a hunch.

Mr.Roush,
I feel like match EQ is in the same kind of family of plugins as spectrum analyzers in a way which is why I mentioned it, they're like little hacks. I try not rely on it but when I am trying to record a guitar part to replace one of the guitars in a multitrack and I want to get as close as possible to the reference, I do the best I can by ear but match EQ can sometimes take me all the way. As I learn more I use those cheat tools less and less. Actually I don't think I've used it once in the last 6months. ProQ2 match EQ sounds very different to the Logic Stock MatchEQ, and believe it or not the Logic Stock one sounds better to me quite often.

Actually what I just said is a good point........ I do the best I can with my ears, but use the metering tools to take me all the way. Hopefully soon I'll be able to use my ear only to take me all the way, but this is unlikely to happen anytime soon as I said above. I'm comparing myself to guys that have been mixing 8-16hours a day for 30 years. Anything to close that gap!

Absolutely! They use spectrum analysis and then apply spectral shaping based on the curve of either a reference or based on AI/Machine learning relative to your track. Essentially, it mimics the same practice a lot of world renowned engineers have relied on heavily, which is manually matching a reference. Basically, it cuts the workload in half at the very least. I think most would agree that a solid preset is a good place to start from. Basically, it's a custom preset tailored to your mix every time! I love that Izotope creates an entire chain along with the match EQ. You hit the nail on the head. Learn the rules, and then break them. I could set up that chain myself. I have. Hundreds of times. No problem. But, why not cut my work in half? I will still tweak every module based on my preferences in most cases. Spectrum analysis is simply far more useful than a lot of folks are willing to admit. Even if I ever feel that my ears are better tuned than my meters, I will always used both. Zero shame! lol

 

[JamEZmusic]

Thanks for letting me know about that Mr.Roush, I like getting into conversations on here sometimes. I learn something everytime. Cheers for that.

The match EQ does things that are just impossible to do by ear, it's a great little hack. I do try to smooth out the lines a bit though to make those moves more broad to humanize it a bit. It's with acoustic guitar I found it to be most useful. I wonder if they will ever do a dynamic match EQ one day? hah... I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe I will send a message over to Izotope and tell them to get on it.

Rob.Aylestone. I am thinking of recording more of my classical guitar soon. I've never really bothered with it much before. I have worked backwards and started with full band stuff with high track counts. Had I have started mixing classical first I might have had an easier time with it. I have periods of time where I don't get to mix any music hardly at all. I'm generally just Mikin up people and recording voice into ISO tracks, or if live then fed straight into the camera. I've been working for ITN lately. I was supposed to have done COP26 but we all lost that job unfortunately even though it was confirmed right up until the end. On Friday I have been called to do some work for some TVawards. I don't really know much about it, nobody tells me nuffin.

I fight for time to mix music, I believe a lot of things I learn in 1 thing will cross over into the other.

Sometimes I can just be in the studio cleaning up whatever I record in the field. It's not music. But I enjoy it.

Thanks for the friendly debate everyone

 

[rob aylestone]

We’re all working to the same end. I’m on a job at the moment away and I have a whole team of people working for me and I just manage or perhaps cover for illness. I have to switch off my “I would have done it like this” and leave the people to do it their way. I can listen to the result and criticise but I have to trust them. However until they arrive it’s me speaking for them. So today I’m putting radio mics into frying pans to pick up the sound of them being hit with a wooden spoon. Beat that for strangeness and tomorrow I am recording the sound of a bear tap dancing to 42nd street. Then I give it to the real sound op on Thursday fir him to integrate and automate! Not an analyser in the place

 

[Mr. ROUSH]

We’re all working to the same end. I’m on a job at the moment away and I have a whole team of people working for me and I just manage or perhaps cover for illness. I have to switch off my “I would have done it like this” and leave the people to do it their way. I can listen to the result and criticise but I have to trust them. However until they arrive it’s me speaking for them. So today I’m putting radio mics into frying pans to pick up the sound of them being hit with a wooden spoon. Beat that for strangeness and tomorrow I am recording the sound of a bear tap dancing to 42nd street. Then I give it to the real sound op on Thursday fir him to integrate and automate! Not an analyser in the place

You keep using anecdotal evidence to make your case. I can point out world renowned engineers who use them and some who don't. That's meaningless, just like it's meaningless that there's no one using an analyzer on the production you're currently working on. For all we really know, it's quite possible that your production could benefit from the use of one. We will just have to give you the benefit of the doubt. Of course, more experienced professionals are less likely to need them or use them. That has no bearing whatsoever on how useful they are. To reiterate the point, the recommendation in this post goes to "newbies" and those who have never had a reference to test their ears against. Analyzers can absolutely help a new or struggling engineer gain a better understanding of what they're doing right and wrong. Nobody should be discouraged from trying them or shamed in any way if they decide to use them regularly. In my opinion, every engineer should at least try them out to see if they can be beneficial to them. My guess is, among the millions of amateur engineers out there, quite a lot of them would benefit considerably. They are absolutely useful for a multitude of purposes. Sometimes, I imagine old school engineers still probably do manually reset their own bowling pins! lol j/k.

 

[rob aylestone]

I just disagree, that's all and anecdotal evidence is surprisingly useful to newcomers so they can decide. I am sure that visual referencing for some music will work, I'm just pointing out that not all music responds remotely well to this technique. It is NOT a standard technique, but one useful occasional for some styles but I concur can be more relevant for some.

The critical point is that following this system can stun creativity and repeat mediocrity when done blindly. Like (anecdotal comparisons coming) a painter using a coloremetry plugin to standardise the green grass tones, or select the appropriate blues. Photoshop and other image processing software has histograms which do similar to the analysers we're discussing - but they need to be followed intelligently. You do not adjust colour balance based solely on the histogram curve. I truly believe it is BAD advice to suggest that the use of analysers in mixing is such a brilliant idea as presented. It's a tool, NOT a prescription. There really is no such thing as world renowned engineers as a generic description. We would, I'm sure, have a totally different list of people, because we do different music, like different music and are miles apart in what we consider 'good'. There is no way in the world I am going to start using analysers as part of my production process. It's simply inappropriate and every single project would need a different curve - making them totally pointless. Part of learning to record is about aural training - getting a feel for balance and tonality, and painting by numbers is a crap introduction to art, and I think following a some kind of straight line as a policy is madness.

we both firmly believe in different things. I think my process is best, and I'm sure you prefer yours - so we should offer these two processes as options, but I'd bet money that if you tried to produce an analyser curve for ten genres, you'd have some where every track fitted the curve, and others where no curve exists. I honestly think that very few new engineers/mixers/balancers/musicians would find an analyser useful at all.

I suspect I have never heard of most of the exponents of mixing by spectrum analysers - in fact, before this topic, I never knew anyone mixed this way, and I've never seen one in use in any mix session I've been at. This just means, I think, that it's the type of music I'm not interested in.

 

[Mr. ROUSH]

I just disagree, that's all and anecdotal evidence is surprisingly useful to newcomers so they can decide. I am sure that visual referencing for some music will work, I'm just pointing out that not all music responds remotely well to this technique. It is NOT a standard technique, but one useful occasional for some styles but I concur can be more relevant for some.

The critical point is that following this system can stun creativity and repeat mediocrity when done blindly. Like (anecdotal comparisons coming) a painter using a coloremetry plugin to standardise the green grass tones, or select the appropriate blues. Photoshop and other image processing software has histograms which do similar to the analysers we're discussing - but they need to be followed intelligently. You do not adjust colour balance based solely on the histogram curve. I truly believe it is BAD advice to suggest that the use of analysers in mixing is such a brilliant idea as presented. It's a tool, NOT a prescription. There really is no such thing as world renowned engineers as a generic description. We would, I'm sure, have a totally different list of people, because we do different music, like different music and are miles apart in what we consider 'good'. There is no way in the world I am going to start using analysers as part of my production process. It's simply inappropriate and every single project would need a different curve - making them totally pointless. Part of learning to record is about aural training - getting a feel for balance and tonality, and painting by numbers is a crap introduction to art, and I think following a some kind of straight line as a policy is madness.

we both firmly believe in different things. I think my process is best, and I'm sure you prefer yours - so we should offer these two processes as options, but I'd bet money that if you tried to produce an analyser curve for ten genres, you'd have some where every track fitted the curve, and others where no curve exists. I honestly think that very few new engineers/mixers/balancers/musicians would find an analyser useful at all.

I suspect I have never heard of most of the exponents of mixing by spectrum analysers - in fact, before this topic, I never knew anyone mixed this way, and I've never seen one in use in any mix session I've been at. This just means, I think, that it's the type of music I'm not interested in.

Anecdotal evidence is not useful to anyone. Relying on anecdotal evidence means you're not making a fully informed decision based on all of the evidence. I'd prefer to consider all of the evidence, not just the individual, limited experience of one person. I would definitely disagree with you when you say it's not standard practice to have an analyzer available. Apparently, most plugin companies disagree with you as well, seeing as how analyzers have become pretty standard on most eq's and other types of plugins also. You keep referring to a "technique." I'm not sure what you're referring to. As a utility, an analyzer is useful in multiple ways regardless of the style of music you're mixing. Frequency buildups aren't unique to one genre of music. An analyzer can give you a target for any genre or style of music. It's not going to compensate for poor sound selection or poor source recordings. It's not going to be a magic fix for a bad foundation. However, as I've said all along, it's simply useful in identifying issues and as a reference to gain some understanding of best practices in comparison to what your ears are hearing.

Essentially, you're to the point of arguing a point nobody has made to begin with. At no point did I say that it is a "system" that should be followed on every mix or that a specific technique should be relied on as a best practice. I have not in any way presented it as an alternative way to mix that eliminates the need for your ears. In fact, I specifically stated several times that I encourage them to be used as a utility in conjunction with your ears.

It has become evident to me after your last reply that you don't even actually understand how they are used in regards to providing a target reference for mastering. I can tell this by your comment stating that every project needs a different curve. That's the whole point. An analyzer provides a graphical representation of the curve of whatever target you're trying to emulate from any genre. The technique is no more or less effective on any one genre of music.

At this point, with all due respect, I would recommend that anybody reading this conversation ignore your advice on the topic. You've never even tried it. You have no first hand experience. You've made a litany of misguided assumptions about a process you didn't even know about and aren't thoroughly educated on.

For anybody who is new to engineering or who has been struggling to get the results you want, try these methods out for yourself and be your own judge. Don't let anyone discourage you from finding out for yourself, especially someone who has never even entertained the possibility or tried it.

While I'm here, let me recommend another way to use an analyzer like Tonal Balance as a reference. Without viewing the analyzer at all, mix your entire project with your ears. Once you're content with your mix, see how your curve compares to the reference. Here's what I've found in my experience. When I get close to the target, the mix sounds very similar to the reference. When there are obvious inconsistencies between the curves, my mix sounds considerably different than the reference. Try it out and see for yourself!

 

[bouldersoundguy]

The problem with newbies and things like spectrum analyzers is that they might not know how to interpret them properly or when to disregard them.

 

[Mr. ROUSH]

The problem with newbies and things like spectrum analyzers is that they might not know how to interpret them properly or when to disregard them.

That is likely true to some degree or another. I'd venture to guess that a lot of newcomers misinterpret a lot of plugins. Nonetheless, analyzers can be a very useful tool when used appropriately. I'd be willing to bet they'd do more good than harm for most who take the time to learn how to use them correctly and when it's appropriate.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

That is likely true to some degree or another. I'd venture to guess that a lot of newcomers misinterpret a lot of plugins. Nonetheless, analyzers can be a very useful tool when used appropriately. I'd be willing to bet they'd do more good than harm for most who take the time to learn how to use them correctly and when it's appropriate.

That sort of contradicts your earlier statement that the recommendation in the post is directed at newbies. By the time they learn how to use them correctly, I wouldn't call them newbies.

 

[mjbphotos]

They are another 'arrow in your quiver', like compressors, limiters, exciters, etc. Learn how and when to use them, and they work.

 

[Mr. ROUSH]

That sort of contradicts your earlier statement that the recommendation in the post is directed at newbies. By the time they learn how to use them correctly, I wouldn't call them newbies.

Actually, I said several times that my recommendation goes to newbies or anyone else struggling to get the sound they're expecting. Honestly, that's a bit of a useless assumption. I know people who have been mixing for years and are still essentially "newbies." Progress in mixing doesn't come automatically with time. Depending on who or what is teaching a person to become an audio engineer and how they're interpreting the information, they may have picked up bad practices. In any event, a spectrum analyzer can be useful to someone with any level of experience. Furthermore, your comment implies that it takes a long time to learn how to use a spectrum analyzer appropriately. It doesn't, at all.

 

[Mr. ROUSH]

They are another 'arrow in your quiver', like compressors, limiters, exciters, etc. Learn how and when to use them, and they work.

Exactly! I might even say it's a sharpening stone that keeps your arrows sharp and accurate. Definitely one more tool in the toolbox, and a useful one!

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I don't say not to use them, but it actually takes a certain amount of skill to avoid the pitfall of being overly reliant on them.

 

[Mr. ROUSH]

I don't say not to use them, but it actually takes a certain amount of skill to avoid the pitfall of being overly reliant on them.

I think a more common problem, especially with people who are new to mixing, is the tendency to overdue things. By default, our brains perceive louder as "better." That's just how we're designed. So, newbies, or anyone anywhere along the line who has never unlearned that habit, will pick up bad practices. Of course, when we're making good things louder, we're making the bad things louder as well if we haven't taken care of them first, though that's not always obvious. Our brains will actually tune out unpleasant frequencies after listening for some time. Listening fatigue is an issue. I consider my ears to be fairly well trained after many years. However, I still like to make sure that there isn't an obvious frequency buildup somewhere that I'm not picking up. Essentially, I think analyzers prevent more bad habits than they have the potential to create.